Evaluation of dialysis centres: values and criteria of the stakeholders

Parra, Eduardo; Arenas, María Dolores (Arenas Jiménez); Fernández-Reyes Luis, María José; Blasco Forcén, Angel; Álvarez-Ude, Fernando; Aguarón Joven, Juan; Altuzarra Casas, Alfredo; Moreno-Jiménez, José María

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05085-w

Evaluation of dialysis centres: values and criteria of the stakeholders

Llicència

Citació

Parra E, Arenas MD, Fernandez-Reyes Luis MJ, Blasco Forcén A, Alvarez-Ude F, Aguarón Joven J, Evaluation of dialysis centres: values and criteria of the stakeholders. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Apr 14; 20(1): 297. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-020-05085-w

Resum

Background: Evaluation of renal replacement therapy with haemodialysis is essential for its improvement. Remarkably, outcomes vary across centres. In addition, the methods used have important epistemological limitations, such as ignoring significant features (e.g., quality of life) or no relevance given to the patient's perspective in the indicator's selection. The present study aimed to determine the opinions and preferences of stakeholders (patients, clinicians, and managers) and establish their relative importance, considering the complexity of their interactions, to facilitate a comprehensive evaluation of haemodialysis centres. Methods: Successive working groups (WGs) were established using a multicriteria methodology. WG1 created a draft of criteria and sub-criteria, WG2 agreed, using a qualitative structured analysis with pre-established criteria, and WG3 was composed of three face-to-face subgroups (WG3-A, WG3-B, and WG3-C) that weighted them using two methodologies: weighted sum (WS) and analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Subsequently, they determined a preference for the WS or AHP results. Finally, via the Internet, WG4 weighted the criteria and sub-criteria by the method preferred by WG3, and WG5 analysed the results. Results: WG1 and WG2 identified and agreed on the following evaluation criteria: evidence-based variables (EBVs), annual morbidity, annual mortality, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs). The EBVs consisted of five sub-criteria: type of vascular access, dialysis dose, haemoglobin concentration, ratio of catheter bacteraemia, and bone mineral disease. The patients rated the PROMs with greater weight than the other stakeholders in both face-to-face WG3 (WS and AHP) and WG4 via the Internet. The type of vascular access was the most valued sub-criterion. A performance matrix of each criterion and sub-criterion is presented as a reference for assessing the results based on the preferences of the stakeholders. Conclusions: The use of a multicriteria methodology allows the relative importance of the indicators to be determined, reflecting the values of the different stakeholders. In a performance matrix, the inclusion of values and intangible aspects in the evaluation could help in making clinical and organizational decisions.